Polo Rules

"Fuck no, we've played like this for 10 years, you noobs can't just change the rules'.

Not blaming them, or anyone else!

Sure, I know you just want an explanation.

Orly? And how will this rule be accepted? Is there a mechanism by which we can engage with the NAH? At the moment it's just one way traffic.

You took what i said out of context. I specifically said that the foul you and Jon would call is not in either NAH or EHBPC ruleset, and if it has any hope in becoming a rule, writing it out concisely would be a good start. I personally think that EHBPC ruleset is very nicely written, if they rulesets are going to get combined, i (personally) would want to look to it as a starting point.

To respond more specifically, there are avenues to talk to NAH about rules, which i've told you about in the past, although as long ago as Grief Masters in February 2009 you specifically told me you had no interest in doing so. It seems like maybe that has changed.

To respond more specifically, there are avenues to talk to NAH about rules, which i've told you about in the past, although as long ago as Grief Masters in February 2009 you specifically told me you had no interest in doing so. It seems like maybe that has changed.

I have emailed you at least once (possibly twice) in the last 6 months asking if it was possible to have some sort of dialogue.

I specifically said that the foul you and Jon would call is not in either NAH or EHBPC ruleset

The rule is "reckless play", but it's subjective (and inconsistently interpreted).

It was originally brought in to infer that the top of a T-bone can sometimes be in the wrong, right? (Spring 2010)

It is now used to explain away any situation in which the ref deems a player has gone in with excessive force/aggression/etc.

In my opinion it needs re-writing (it acknowledges a problem, but isn't a solution) and the ruleset should enable players/teams to play as fast/intensely as they'd like (within the rules).

Having a ref stop a game to tell the players to "cool it a little" as they're playing too hard is one of the most irritating situations to be in... but it seems necessary sometimes (on both sides of the pond) as no-one really understands where the boundaries are (people will tell you it's about intent, it's not).

I have emailed you at least once (possibly twice) in the last 6 months asking if it was possible to have some sort of dialogue.

Yeah i just found a one line email from August 30, i apologize that fell through the cracks.

Bill & Jono,

Please don't step down from reffing. If neither of you are reffing according to 'International norms' then it's because you're ahead of the curve. You've both contributed a huge amount to the rules and reffing standards in this country and there is nobody else I would rather have ref my games. Post National Series, I believe every player in the UK has a better understanding of what the rules are and an increased respect for how difficult it is to ref those rules. Surely that is something to build on over the next year and continue to be proud of?

this x100

...as it's also Europeans who have been screaming at me that I am ruining tournaments with my reffing (for which, thanks, guys, the advice & its tone was much appreciated).

If there is one rule that I think is desperately needed in polo, it is a 30 second penalty for dissent, second time you get sent off for the rest of the game. Even if the ref is wrong or you disagree with them, their decision must be final. This is the case in almost every sport and will make people think twice before abusing refs

Yeah i just found a one line email from August 30, i apologize that fell through the cracks.

Better late than never. :-).

Well, Bill said quite strongly at the start there would be harsh penalties for dissent.

That didn't stop it, I saw arguing, throwing of bikes, helmets etc.

Consider how much aggro there was for the triple failed tapout thing, imagine if you then punished those people even further for arguing.

I'm not sure how well it would go down.

it would go down like a ton of bricks. but then their team would loose. If refs were strong enough to do it a couple of times, people would shut up and get on (like snoops said in his post) with it as they would see such behaviour as not in their teams best interests. arguing, throwing of bikes, helmets etc is not on and people who act like that dont deserve to stay on the pitch. It happens in every other sport, why not in polo?

dissent has been the single thing that has consistently put people off reffing games since I started playing polo 3 years ago. Surely it cant be too hard to stop acting like a bitch and just play polo...

I thought Polo was supposed to be like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ODe9mqoDE
?

It is, you strive for the front wheel advantage.

The difference is that London has played a "you can't play people off their bikes" kind of mentality (cutting across at speed, blind side taking a front wheel out, carving a corner around another player so they cannot turn and have to crash, etc), basically what we've perceived to be "don't be a dick".

But yeah, the majority mindset is very Tron with a few exceptions.

There is now talk of penalising players (who have possession) for being forced to T-bone someone that rides infront of them, etc (so in the video, Clement could be penalised for riding into Will if he had stayed on his bike)... this is the origin of the t-bone rule, but now seems odd given that players not in possession can travel faster and cut lines at will, maybe it could work.

In the past we would have viewed a forced t-bone kind of incident from a completely different angle (the onus being on the player without the ball to avoid causing a crash unless they're stationary).

I guess in London we've played that the player in possession can do no wrong unless they ride into someone because they didn't look where they were going, or tried to ride through another player's bike/a closed off gap/etc. This is not the international/majority mindset/approach.

If there is one rule that I think is desperately needed in polo, it is a 30 second penalty for dissent, second time you get sent off for the rest of the game. Even if the ref is wrong or you disagree with them, their decision must be final. This is the case in almost every sport and will make people think twice before abusing refs

The rule is in there, and I told the players that I would be enforcing it.

I actually did take Luka off for 30 secs for dissent. He rolled back across someone, I gave a foul, and then I brought him & Emmet over to warn them to keep their arms down. He started arguing, wouldn't stop, so I took him out.

Didn't stop Dead Rappers scoring a goal while he was off. Did stop him arguing though.

The worst dissent was from players after they had been knocked out, ie when I no longer had a sanction.

I don't know. I think there was clearly a problem with the reffing at LII, but whether it was a problem caused by players not used to being reffed (I didn't have a problem with any London players) or whether it was because I was getting a lot of stuff wrong, I can't say.

I don't think it was you Bill. Sure, you didn't get every decision right, but who does when reffing 100 games.

I think it was mainly that players weren't used to being reffed to that level. I wouldn't want you to do it any differently next time.

To me, the whole development of the sport has reached the point where we need to decide whether we are playing foot-down with a ball, or ball sport that has a tap-out rule.

There are two reasons that I prefer a ball sport to foot-down

1. It's more skilful. Forcing the defenders to jockey the ball-carrier into a position where they can actually make some sort of contact with the ball, as opposed to just riding across their path at speed, encourages more thoughtful play. I noticed that Hooks, despite getting very cross when I called them for short-stopping in Cambridge, played about as clean as any team in the LII.

2. Safety. What is being accepted in N America as legitimate defensive move, ie riding across the line and taking out the ball-carrier's front wheel, appears very dangerous to me.

I completely agree with 2. It can't be long before we see life changing injuries from those sort of moves.

I guess all we can do is pad up as well as possible.

i didnt give you any dissent during the game. But i did come up and speak to you after. I was unhappy at the un-eveness of the reffing in a couple of games. You pulled up innocuous challenges and let hacking go and wilful obstruction when the player was 'tapout'. (Ryan should have been sent off for 30 sec, We had 40 seconds to equalise against SB and he detoured to obstruct me and swing his mallet at teh ball when he should have been tapping out. I had to avoid him, lost control of the ball and lost valuable seconds and ultimately the game) It was extremely un-sportmanlike, It really pissed me off at the time, because i just thought what was the point. I dont need a ref to give me a ball turnover for a mistaken light touch t-bone. Neither do I give that much of a shit about a 2 foot wide tapout. But when you whistle again and again for minor infractions and I feel like i will be protected from the sloppy hacking and blatant fouling, but aren't. I got slashed, heavily by clemont, lauren, luca, all of the tigers. And frankly i waited for you to do something about it. Whether you warned them (or i heard it or not) i dont know. But i felt like i would have rather take it into my own hands next time. Hack the shit outta them before they hacked me, but i let myself get pushed around because i thought the ref would deal with it and didnt. That said i cant say of course whether any of the games were more calm or less because of the reffing. I guess what i am saying is that two players that accidentally bump into each other without incident or injury is commonplace and not at all on purpose. So therefore should just be play on. But a player that hacks or enters the other cockpit is clearly on purpose, but not once was that called, (in my case anyway). Good job reffing all those games though bill. I mean it. Agree or not, it was important to do it.

i didnt give you any dissent during the game. But i did come up and speak to you after. I was unhappy at the un-eveness of the reffing in a couple of games. You pulled up innocuous challenges and let hacking go and wilful obstruction when the player was 'tapout'. (Ryan should have been sent off for 30 sec, We had 40 seconds to equalise against SB and he detoured to obstruct me and swing his mallet at teh ball when he should have been tapping out. I had to avoid him, lost control of the ball and lost valuable seconds and ultimately the game) It was extremely un-sportmanlike, It really pissed me off at the time, because i just thought what was the point. I dont need a ref to give me a ball turnover for a mistaken light touch t-bone. Neither do I give that much of a shit about a 2 foot wide tapout. But when you whistle again and again for minor infractions and I feel like i will be protected from the sloppy hacking and blatant fouling, but aren't. I got slashed, heavily by clemont, lauren, luca, all of the tigers. And frankly i waited for you to do something about it. Whether you warned them (or i heard it or not) i dont know. But i felt like i would have rather take it into my own hands next time. Hack the shit outta them before they hacked me, but i let myself get pushed around because i thought the ref would deal with it and didnt. That said i cant say of course whether any of the games were more calm or less because of the reffing. I guess what i am saying is that two players that accidentally bump into each other without incident or injury is commonplace and not at all on purpose. So therefore should just be play on. But a player that hacks or enters the other cockpit is clearly on purpose, but not once was that called, (in my case anyway). Good job reffing all those games though bill. I mean it. Agree or not, it was important to do it.

Ok, if Ryan was foot-down, I obviously totally missed that, for which I apologise. I also apologise for any other stuff that I may have missed in your games. I genuinely did the best job that I could, and I am very sorry that you felt let down by my performance as a ref in your games.

In fact, I'm doing a lot of apologising here, which is getting kind of boring, when you, Greg, Stefan & some others were more or less abusive to me, and of those people that were screaming at me during the tournament, the only one that has apologised is Yorgo, bless him. I personally would rather not ref again simply because it was such an unpleasant experience, and I get paid a lot more by my boss to get screamed at by angry people who don't feel the need to apologise.

Actually i apologised an hour later. I said to you i didn't agree at all, but said i was sorry i spoke to you in a heated manner and that it was because i had just walked off court. Neither do i feel like you owe me an apology. I just didn't have a bagel to fall back on.

..

I guess all we can do is pad up as well as possible.

This shouldn't be the answer...

(Ryan should have been sent off for 30 sec, We had 40 seconds to equalise against SB and he detoured to obstruct me and swing his mallet at teh ball when he should have been tapping out. I had to avoid him, lost control of the ball and lost valuable seconds and ultimately the game) It was extremely un-sportmanlike, It really pissed me off at the time, because i just thought what was the point.

Ok, I figured out which game this was. This is the game that was timed-out with less than a minute left and then restarted without me being anywhere near the centre-line, ie not ready.

You guys apparently heard a whistle (not mine) & restarted, which explains why I failed to see the foul from Ryan, as I wasn't even looking at the game (not being aware that the game had restarted), but was actually talking to JohnH. Sorry, I should have brought that game back and restarted.

Yes, I now remember that you not only had a go at me for missing the foul from Ryan, you also disputed that I hadn't restarted the game, which was totally absurd!

This shouldn't be the answer...

I don't know, I think the appropriate padding should be encouraged, it's like the endless facecage debate.

I just didn't have a bagel to fall back on.

best private joke of the thread.

I don't know, I think the appropriate padding should be encouraged, it's like the endless facecage debate.

Appropriate, yes but we shouldn't feel the need to pad completely up to protect ourselves from overly dangerous play. Otherwise we'll just end up looking like hockey players on bikes.